As one who likes to use the flight deck cruisers i welcome the change, but i do wonder about how many ensigns are being stuffed into a single room to make room for all those extra fighters.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
i do think the paradox should be in on these temporal updates, also am i the only romulan that would like to see a cloaking device and singularity core on there temporal ships would also be nice if you could drop a singularilty core in the paradox ...just saying temporal science warbird, temporal science dreadnought warbird and temporal warbird destroyer have a nice ring to them.
The renaming/repurposing of the flight deck cruisers and escort carriers is overcomplicated. I appreciate the idea of clarifying the categories of ships to make them more distinctive, but I think you're trying WAY too hard on the new names. Keep it to two words, simple and consistent:
I'm wondering what the next TFO is going to be. There's supposed to be one coming in August (which is going to be the last of three going towards the free T6 token).
Since Thursday is August 1st (which happens to be a Holiday where I'm from), this update will probably include the new TFO with it.
It's Arena of sompek. No reason to wonder, it's in the in-game calendar, and has been for the last month.
That's ok, reliability of the calendar lately made me not even look.
Hey, cheers and thank you! I really appreciate the effort to improve naming convention uniformity. (The buffs are unexpectedly appreciated as well. My Bastion and Quas really didn't need them, but thanks all the same!)
Also, it would be neat to see ships with unconventional forward weaponry focus(5/3, etc.) get this sort of naming treatment as well - like an 'Assault' prefix or some such(Assault Battlecruiser, Assault Dreadnought, etc.).
It might receive more positively if say the Klingon temporal ships were not locked behind a paywall. I like to refer to the hot dog stand for the anti-pay wall logic. So you have some hot dogs and want to become a millionaire so you charge one million for each of your hot dogs. Now down the street you have other people selling them too for around the same price as each other. So what happens is no one is going to buy your hot dog for a million dollars but those people down the street(other gaming companies are out performing you because you are absolutely insane). So you can dress up the hot dog all you like but its still a 50 cent hot dog. Possibly maybe a trill on a stick too.
I would like to propose that the Nimitz/Europa get turned into a flight deck carrier seeing as how it is the only discovery ship that launched in the c-store without being a full specialization ship. Show it some love and give it two hangar bays to make up for that decision which landed it with a delightful 5/3 weapon layout... but only 3 tactical consoles. ^^
Plus there's the whole United States "Nimitz class carrier" thing... so... come on now... lets make this a thing.
huh? I don't entirely get the last change. For me, "Escort Carrier" perfectly explained what they were... an Escort-Carrier hybrid.
Strike Wing Escort imo sounds like a tiny fast fighter-escort thing.
"Please, Captain, not in front of the Klingons." Spock to Kirk, as Kirk is about to hug him.
Star Trek V: "The Final Frontier"
Can the T5 & T6 temporal science warbirds and destroyer warbirds get singularity cores and battle cloak, and battle cloak for the Klingon ones please? They have real nice ship models but without this they're clones of each other, and become further redundant with the Eternal across the three factions. Feds/KDF/Dom already have access now to a warbird and I imagine most upcoming ones, so restricting Roms & KDF of their faction-specific benefits feels a little rough.
Echoing thoughts already expressed here: Annorax is the timeship that has entire episodes dedicated to altering time and jumping through it, and it's also a canon ship. Paradox is also a timeship. Could they receive full temporal spec too? Valkis could use access to Scimitar's Drone Ships since it's supposed to be outstanding in some way but now no longer with the buff to flight deck cruisers - maybe its Fed/KDF counterparts could get access to some special faction-pet too. Also, carriers could use a little something as the quick pet deploy mastery falls a little short in comparison to an extra hangar bay for flight deck carriers.
Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
· ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
«» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
Can the T5 & T6 temporal science warbirds and destroyer warbirds get singularity cores and battle cloak, and battle cloak for the Klingon ones please? They have real nice ship models but without this they're clones of each other, and become further redundant with the Eternal across the three factions. Feds/KDF/Dom already have access now to a warbird and I imagine most upcoming ones, so restricting Roms & KDF of their faction-specific benefits feels a little rough.
...
Yes Please.. Make the Romulan Variants access a singularity core and give em a battle cloak.
It's nice to see that Flight-Deck Cruisers are getting upgraded to basically be Carriers in their own right (complete with name change).
However, I feel like this is leaving the true Carriers (6 total weapons + 2 hangar bays) completely in the dust. I imagine they have fewer weapons because their extra hangar bay was supposed to make up for that, and I salute Cryptic for trying to give hangar pets better AI and survivability (and therefore, usefulness). But now, the advantage of an additional hangar bay is gone, making "true" Carriers simply worse versions of their newly-buffed Flight Deck counterparts.
I'm not sure how it would affect overall game balance, but I feel that adding a third hangar to true Carriers would be a good step in bringing them back in line with the breadth of other ships. I for one would happily sacrifice the built-in Subsystem Targeting (which, I'm a Science Carrier main, been playing since 2012 and never use it) in place of being able to have more pets on the field at once. It would certainly make me feel like I'm bringing a mobile force with me wherever I go, which I thought was the point of having a Carrier in the first place.
But, that's just my two cents. Whatever you choose to do, Cryptic, I hope you give your true Carrier captains some love. ^_^
some non-carriers can deploy frigate pets as well, though...any ship with a hangar can deploy yukawa frigates - that they are still total TRIBBLE is beside the point
also, the romulan drones, baltim frigates, plesh brek frigates, elachi qulash frigates, vanguard gunships, krenim heavy raiders, sphere builder arehbes frigates, vorgon echentis frigates and the xindi-auatic mobulai frigates
every one of those can be deployed by non-carrier ships
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
So - the problem here is that Dreadnought Carriers (Like the Jem Hadar Dreadnought Carrier) and dedicated Carriers (Jupiter, Recluse, etc) are now *less* powerful than flight deck carriers. Flight deck carriers have all the benefits of cruisers and all the benefits of carriers with none of the drawbacks.
The carriers I listed above are PREMIUM and are being left in the dust. Yes, they have commander-level tac or Sci seating ,but they are still stuck at either 7 or 6 beam arrays and crappy subsystem targeting, which, lets be honest, few people if at all use. (its garbage)
I have a feeling that the Annorax and Paradox aren't getting full temporal spec because they both already have double spec seats, none of which are temporal.
Going from LtC to Com temporal is different from LtC/Lt going to Com/?.
Not only would those 2 ships have to rejigger ranks of specialist seats, they'd have to change the play style and builds a bit by changing the type of specialization
Personally I'm a little disappointed to find out that the "Flight-deck cruiser's/Battlecruiser's Presidio, Geneva and Concorde are not getting that hanger bay.
Personally I'm a little disappointed to find out that the "Flight-deck cruiser's/Battlecruiser's Presidio, Geneva and Concorde are not getting that hanger bay.
Agreed, I always felt they looked more like a federation version of a carrier than the jupiter. Let the command flight deck carriers be a thing, and lets upgrade the Nimitz/Europa to a flight deck carrier so that it can reflect its forebearer, the Nimitz class carrier!
I'm still wondering why the T6 Temporal Science Ships and the 32nd Century Eternal Multi-Mission aren't 4/3 layout since most of the newer Science Ships are going that direction.
I'm still wondering why the T6 Temporal Science Ships and the 32nd Century Eternal Multi-Mission aren't 4/3 layout since most of the newer Science Ships are going that direction.
4/3 is only on ships classified as "Science Destroyers" and "Science Dreadnoughts."
Of which there are only (2) Sci Destroyers,only 1 being a T6) with the other first coming out in May of 2014.
and only have (4) Science Dreadnoughts (last one of these we got May of 2018)...
Id hardly say thats the direction Science ships are going.Especially since the ALL Previous Science Vessels (Not Dreads or Destroyers or Multimission) and the recent example, Tholian Iktomi, retains the standard 3/3 layout common in science ship.Same with the scout ships.
Because it was a raider hybrid. We have three types of sci ships ones which are sci heavy, ones which have a engi as secondary, and ones which have a tactical as secondary.
please please update the full carriers to have 3 or 4 hangars then. With the added hangars, the current " full " carriers have become obsolete.
A real shame, because i love the jupiter and even the atrox. but they seem useless now. this makes me very sad.
plz do not chance the Miracle Worker Flight Deck Cruiser [T6] its a cruiser NOT A CARRIER its like a sister ship and the TOS connie is not a carrier we have finaly a connie thats look like TOS but then in a T6 plz i did spend like 380 euros in it to get it and now youre chance it no way
It's not being changed, it was the prototype for the Flight Deck Crusier updates to the Flight Deck Carrier. Only a name change for it.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I agree with the poeople who say that the Paradox should also be part of the temporal ship changes because, aside from the 31st century appearance and theme of its console, it has NOTHING temporal about it.
So - the problem here is that Dreadnought Carriers (Like the Jem Hadar Dreadnought Carrier) and dedicated Carriers (Jupiter, Recluse, etc) are now *less* powerful than flight deck carriers. Flight deck carriers have all the benefits of cruisers and all the benefits of carriers with none of the drawbacks.
The carriers I listed above are PREMIUM and are being left in the dust. Yes, they have commander-level tac or Sci seating ,but they are still stuck at either 7 or 6 beam arrays and crappy subsystem targeting, which, lets be honest, few people if at all use. (its garbage)
They need something too.
Subsystem targeting is not bad if you play to its advantages, like for instance the engine drain one is handy with a gravity well build (and rather fun in Gravity Kills) and other controller builds. If you play everything as tac DPS I suppose it might be less useful.
plz do not chance the Miracle Worker Flight Deck Cruiser [T6] its a cruiser NOT A CARRIER its like a sister ship and the TOS connie is not a carrier we have finaly a connie thats look like TOS but then in a T6 plz i did spend like 380 euros in it to get it and now youre chance it no way
The TOS Constitution class is not a carrier, but the DSC season two ender shows that the "Donnie" as some call the DSC version of the Constitution is definitely a hybrid carrier something like todays Kuznetsov class carrier/missile cruiser. The TOS shuttlebay was supposed to be the equivalent of the pair of seaplanes on cat rails that were often a feature of heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships (or the two helicopters the Arleigh Burke class carries for a more modern example).
In fact, Roddenberry was adamant about the fact that it was impossible for a shuttle to generate enough energy to pose any significant threat to a capital ship so a "carrier" would be useless except for ground support (which is why the Galaxy had such a big main bay and the secondary bays dotted around). Think of a zodiac with a machinegun trying to sink something like the Iowa by trying to shoot through its armor belt.
Comments
Flight-Deck Cruisers = Flight Cruisers.
Escort Carriers = Flight Escorts.
Save the word "Carrier" for the "pure" carriers like the Jupiter, Atrox, Obelisk, and JH Vanguard Carrier.
The JH Vanguard Dreadnought Cruiser is fine as is. The JH Dreadnought Carrier may need re-addressed under the new system as a Flight Cruiser.
That's ok, reliability of the calendar lately made me not even look.
Also, it would be neat to see ships with unconventional forward weaponry focus(5/3, etc.) get this sort of naming treatment as well - like an 'Assault' prefix or some such(Assault Battlecruiser, Assault Dreadnought, etc.).
Plus there's the whole United States "Nimitz class carrier" thing... so... come on now... lets make this a thing.
Strike Wing Escort imo sounds like a tiny fast fighter-escort thing.
Spock to Kirk, as Kirk is about to hug him.
Star Trek V: "The Final Frontier"
Can the T5 & T6 temporal science warbirds and destroyer warbirds get singularity cores and battle cloak, and battle cloak for the Klingon ones please? They have real nice ship models but without this they're clones of each other, and become further redundant with the Eternal across the three factions. Feds/KDF/Dom already have access now to a warbird and I imagine most upcoming ones, so restricting Roms & KDF of their faction-specific benefits feels a little rough.
Echoing thoughts already expressed here: Annorax is the timeship that has entire episodes dedicated to altering time and jumping through it, and it's also a canon ship. Paradox is also a timeship. Could they receive full temporal spec too? Valkis could use access to Scimitar's Drone Ships since it's supposed to be outstanding in some way but now no longer with the buff to flight deck cruisers - maybe its Fed/KDF counterparts could get access to some special faction-pet too. Also, carriers could use a little something as the quick pet deploy mastery falls a little short in comparison to an extra hangar bay for flight deck carriers.
Yes Please.. Make the Romulan Variants access a singularity core and give em a battle cloak.
Rouge Sto Wiki Editor.
Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!
You can search Twitter using the search box below or return to the homepage.
Search for a topic, full name, or @username
العربية Български език বাংলা Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Ελληνικά English English UK Español فارسی Suomi Filipino Français ગુજરાતી עִבְרִית हिन्दी Hrvatski Magyar Bahasa Indonesia Italiano 日本語 ಕನ್ನಡ 한국어 मराठी Bahasa Melayu Nederlands Norsk Polski Português Română Русский Slovenčina Српски Svenska தமிழ் ภาษาไทย Türkçe Українська мова Tiếng Việt 简体中文 繁體中文
© Twitter 2019 About Help Center Status
Member since December 2009
However, I feel like this is leaving the true Carriers (6 total weapons + 2 hangar bays) completely in the dust. I imagine they have fewer weapons because their extra hangar bay was supposed to make up for that, and I salute Cryptic for trying to give hangar pets better AI and survivability (and therefore, usefulness). But now, the advantage of an additional hangar bay is gone, making "true" Carriers simply worse versions of their newly-buffed Flight Deck counterparts.
I'm not sure how it would affect overall game balance, but I feel that adding a third hangar to true Carriers would be a good step in bringing them back in line with the breadth of other ships. I for one would happily sacrifice the built-in Subsystem Targeting (which, I'm a Science Carrier main, been playing since 2012 and never use it) in place of being able to have more pets on the field at once. It would certainly make me feel like I'm bringing a mobile force with me wherever I go, which I thought was the point of having a Carrier in the first place.
But, that's just my two cents. Whatever you choose to do, Cryptic, I hope you give your true Carrier captains some love. ^_^
also, the romulan drones, baltim frigates, plesh brek frigates, elachi qulash frigates, vanguard gunships, krenim heavy raiders, sphere builder arehbes frigates, vorgon echentis frigates and the xindi-auatic mobulai frigates
every one of those can be deployed by non-carrier ships
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
The carriers I listed above are PREMIUM and are being left in the dust. Yes, they have commander-level tac or Sci seating ,but they are still stuck at either 7 or 6 beam arrays and crappy subsystem targeting, which, lets be honest, few people if at all use. (its garbage)
They need something too.
Going from LtC to Com temporal is different from LtC/Lt going to Com/?.
Not only would those 2 ships have to rejigger ranks of specialist seats, they'd have to change the play style and builds a bit by changing the type of specialization
Agreed, I always felt they looked more like a federation version of a carrier than the jupiter. Let the command flight deck carriers be a thing, and lets upgrade the Nimitz/Europa to a flight deck carrier so that it can reflect its forebearer, the Nimitz class carrier!
4/3 is only on ships classified as "Science Destroyers" and "Science Dreadnoughts."
Of which there are only (2) Sci Destroyers,only 1 being a T6) with the other first coming out in May of 2014.
and only have (4) Science Dreadnoughts (last one of these we got May of 2018)...
Id hardly say thats the direction Science ships are going.Especially since the ALL Previous Science Vessels (Not Dreads or Destroyers or Multimission) and the recent example, Tholian Iktomi, retains the standard 3/3 layout common in science ship.Same with the scout ships.
Rouge Sto Wiki Editor.
Why..Weapons are not the Primary damage for science ships.
Rouge Sto Wiki Editor.
A real shame, because i love the jupiter and even the atrox. but they seem useless now. this makes me very sad.
Now if you could bring back the crue... (they had to be enhanced, not removed).
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Subsystem targeting is not bad if you play to its advantages, like for instance the engine drain one is handy with a gravity well build (and rather fun in Gravity Kills) and other controller builds. If you play everything as tac DPS I suppose it might be less useful.
The TOS Constitution class is not a carrier, but the DSC season two ender shows that the "Donnie" as some call the DSC version of the Constitution is definitely a hybrid carrier something like todays Kuznetsov class carrier/missile cruiser. The TOS shuttlebay was supposed to be the equivalent of the pair of seaplanes on cat rails that were often a feature of heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships (or the two helicopters the Arleigh Burke class carries for a more modern example).
In fact, Roddenberry was adamant about the fact that it was impossible for a shuttle to generate enough energy to pose any significant threat to a capital ship so a "carrier" would be useless except for ground support (which is why the Galaxy had such a big main bay and the secondary bays dotted around). Think of a zodiac with a machinegun trying to sink something like the Iowa by trying to shoot through its armor belt.